Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

State of Conservation

10
Reports
10
Properties concerned
10
States Parties with SOC reports
Date Start: 2003close
Date end:2003close
Threats* : Interpretative and visitation facilitiesclose
States Parties: Poland
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties: Indonesia
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties: Paraguay
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties: Argentina Brazil
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties: South Africa
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Natural values and cultural landscape qualities are not yet reflected in the islands management structure and conservation priorities
States Parties: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B,WHC.03/27.COM/7B.Corr
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Risks of collapse
States Parties: Mali
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7A
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Lack of capacities in conservation techniques
Danger List:  Yes
States Parties: Algeria
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7A
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Deterioration of the archaeological vestiges
Danger List:  Yes
States Parties: Lao People's Democratic Republic
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top